Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 4/2017

01-04-2017

Health-related quality of life associated with systemic corticosteroids

Authors: Patrick W. Sullivan, Vahram H. Ghushchyan, Gary Globe, Brandon Sucher

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 4/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Systemic corticosteroids (SCS) are commonly used but are associated with adverse effects. Given their prevalent use, the potential impact of SCS use on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important to characterize.

Objective

To assess the HRQoL of patients taking SCS.

Methods

The 2000–2003 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey was used to examine EQ-5D and SF-6D scores associated with SCS use in adults. The study sample was restricted to those with a condition for which SCS are prescribed. SCS use was categorized into three levels: none; 1–3; and ≥4 prescriptions per year. HRQoL scores were regressed on SCS use (1–3 or ≥4 annual prescriptions) controlling for age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, income category, geographic region, number of ER visits, number of outpatient visits, total number of chronic conditions (for which SCS are not used) and conditions for which SCS are clinically indicated.

Results

There were 54,856 individuals with no SCS exposure, 2245 with 1–3 and 624 with ≥4 annual SCS prescriptions. In adjusted analyses, use of ≥4 annual SCS prescriptions appeared to be associated with significantly lower EQ-5D (US), EQ-5D (UK), SF-6D and EQ-5D VAS scores compared to no exposure: −0.032, −0.047, −0.036, and −7.58.

Conclusion

While SCS are efficacious and widely used for numerous conditions, results suggest that their use may be associated with a substantial deleterious impact on HRQoL. This potential negative effect should be considered in balance with the cost and efficacy of comparable treatments.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) NH, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. Bethesda, MD2012.
2.
Fardet, L., Kassar, A., Cabane, J., & Flahault, A. (2007). Corticosteroid-induced adverse events in adults: Frequency, screening and prevention. Drug Safety, 30(10), 861–881.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Weiss, A., Elixhauser, A., Bae, J., & Encinosa, W. (2013). Origin of adverse drug events in US Hospitals, 2011. Statistical Brief #158. Rockville, MD: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP).
4.
Sarnes, E., Crofford, L., Watson, M., Dennis, G., Kan, H., & Bass, D. (2011). Incidence and US costs of corticosteroid-associated adverse events: A systematic literature review. Clinical Therapeutics, 33(10), 1413–1432.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Shah, M., Chaudhari, S., McLaughlin, T. P., et al. (2013). Cumulative burden of oral corticosteroid adverse effects and the economic implications of corticosteroid use in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Clinical Therapeutics, 35(4), 486–497.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Sullivan, P. W., & Ghushchyan, V. (2006). Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Medical Decision Making, 26(4), 410–420.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Brooks, R. G., Jendteg, S., Lindgren, B., Persson, U., & Bjork, S. (1991). EuroQol: Health-related quality of life measurement. Results of the Swedish questionnaire exercise. Health Policy, 18(1), 37–48.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care, 43(3), 203–220.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Brazier, J. E., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care, 42(9), 851–859.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., & Norman, G. R. (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(4), 371–383.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Troosters, T. (2011). How important is a minimal difference? European Respiratory Journal, 37(4), 755–756.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 14(6), 1523–1532.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2003). What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1(1), 4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Sullivan, P. W., Lawrence, W. F., & Ghushchyan, V. (2005). A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Medical Care, 43(7), 736–749.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Grootendorst, P., Feeny, D., & Furlong, W. (2000). Health Utilities Index Mark 3: Evidence of construct validity for stroke and arthritis in a population health survey. Medical Care, 38(3), 290–299.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Sullivan, P. W., Lawrence, W. F., Jr., & Ghushchyan, V. (2005). A, national catalogue of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the US. Medical Care, 43(7), 736–749.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Sullivan, P. W., & Ghushchyan, V. (2006). Mapping the EQ-5D index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Medical Decision Making, 26(4), 401–409.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Powell, J. (1984). Least absolute deviations estimation for the censored regression model. Journal of Econometrics, 25, 303–325.CrossRef
22.
Maddala, G. S. (1999). Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Green, W. H. (2000). Econometric analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24.
Gray, A. M., Rivero-Arias, O., & Clarke, P. M. (2006). Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Medical Decision Making, 26(1), 18–29.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Hyland, M. E., Whalley, B., Jones, R. C., & Masoli, M. (2015). A qualitative study of the impact of severe asthma and its treatment showing that treatment burden is neglected in existing asthma assessment scales. Quality of Life Research, 24(3), 631–639.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Fardet, L., Flahault, A., Kettaneh, A., et al. (2007). Corticosteroid-induced clinical adverse events: Frequency, risk factors and patient’s opinion. British Journal of Dermatology, 157(1), 142–148.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Brown, E. S., & Chandler, P. A. (2001). Mood and cognitive changes during systemic corticosteroid therapy. Prim Care Companion Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 3(1), 17–21.CrossRef
28.
Basch, E., Reeve, B. B., Mitchell, S. A., et al. (2014). Development of the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). Journal of the National Cancer Institute. doi:10.​1093/​jnci/​dju244.
Metadata
Title
Health-related quality of life associated with systemic corticosteroids
Authors
Patrick W. Sullivan
Vahram H. Ghushchyan
Gary Globe
Brandon Sucher
Publication date
01-04-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1435-y

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Quality of Life Research 4/2017 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

When global rating of change contradicts observed change: Examining appraisal processes underlying paradoxical responses over time

OriginalPaper

Diagnostic accuracy of parents’ ratings of their child’s oral health-related quality of life

OriginalPaper

Oral health-related quality of life in youth receiving cleft-related surgery: self-report and proxy ratings

OriginalPaper

Mental health and health-related quality of life of Chinese college students who were the victims of dating violence

OriginalPaper

Acceptance and patient functioning in chronic pain: the mediating role of physical activity

OriginalPaper

Impact of neurocognitive deficits on patient–proxy agreement regarding health-related quality of life in low-grade glioma patients